To ensure the quality of the research that is published in the volumes of the DH Benelux Journal, all submissions undergo a strict peer review process. All articles that appear in the journal are full length articles that have been reviewed by at least three experts in the field.

The reviewing is conducted through a single-blind peer reviewing process where reviewers are asked to consider the overall quality of the research, the clarity of the contribution’s presentation, the methodology that was used, and the novelty of the contribution. Reviewers are asked to point out two strong points and two weak points about the article, and to be constructive in their criticism. On the basis of these criteria, the reviewers submit their evaluation of the academic value of the contribution in a four-point rating scale: accept, accept pending minor revisions, accept pending major revisions, or reject. Combining the reviewers’ results, the editors of each issue then make the final call, and decide whether to accept or reject the contribution, and which revisions are necessary before the contribution can be published.

Since there is no open call for contributions, all submissions (and their reviews) occur on set times, and contributors are informed when to expect their review in each call for submissions.

Guidelines for Reviewers

We are grateful to all our reviewers for the time and effort they put into ensuring that our Journal can attain its high qualitaty standard. To make the process as easy as possible for the reviewers, they are asked to provide their feedback in a Google Form where they are asked to rate the contribution’s overal quality as follows:

  • Knowledge of the field: Does the article cite the relevant literature? Are claims supported by references to literature or via experimental results? (On a scale of 1 to 5, ranging from ‘Embedding in the literature is incorrect or completely missing’ to ‘Pretty much all the relevant literature is cited’).
  • Methodology: Is it clear how the digital research was conducted and why this method was chosen? Are the data and tools used in the research clearly described? Is the approach adequate for the materials and research question? (On a scale of 1 to 5, ranging from ‘Low methodological quality’ to ‘High methodological quality’).
  • Clarity: Is the article logically structured? Is the line of argumentation easy to follow? Is it clear in what way the article contributes to the field? (On a scale of 1 to 5, ranging from ‘Not very well written’ to ‘Very well written’).
  • Novelty: To what extent does the article contribute new knowledge or insights? This includes verifying previous work via replication or via alternative methods. (On a scale of 1 to 5, ranging from ‘Not very novel’ to ‘Breakthrough in the field’).

In addition to these criteria, reviewers are also asked to confirm their own confidence in reviewing the contribution, by indicating to what extent it relates to their own research. Here too, reviewers are presented with a five-point scale, ranging from ‘The research is situated outside of my professional expertise’ to ‘I am an expert in this field’.

Finally, the reviewers also receive two open text fields: one to provide their feedback to the author(s), and one to provide feedback to the editors (which will not be shared with the authors). In the open text field with feedback for the authors, reviewers are explicitly asked to point out at least two strong points, and two weaker points in the contribution. Reviewers are strongly urged to keep their feedback professional and constructive. Snide remarks and criticisms without argumentation are not appreciated.

All this information is ultimately weighed and evaluated by the volume’s editors, who prepare their verdict and feedback to the author(s).